Shakespeare Fans discussion

Macbeth is very good? Is it not?!

Absolutely!! :)

It is a very good play, and when well-done, great to watch.

Macbeth is a fascinating study in character(s). There are many different routes a director can take with because it is so rich in the writing -- rich without being preachy.

It is, though, one of Shakespeare's darkest plays. Most of Shakespeare's tragedies have light-hearted moments to relieve the tension. Macbeth has almost none.

There are some light-hearted moments in Macbeth; the porter at the castle (Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes
away the performance). The witches crack me up - what great lines!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
2 WITCH. Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble

My favorite part in the play is when Lady Mac goes crazy and kills herself! It is very dark but I love the tension! In Shakespeare Competition we won! (I was a witch)

I enjoyed the video of the production with Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian McKellan.

Macbeth is a play that is very close to my heart. I have played both Banquo and Malcolm and I have served as fight choreographer. I've never directed it but God knows I would LOVE to.

I must respectfully disagree with Daniel that there are virtually no light moments in the play though I admit they are not obvious and must be sought out and carefully played up. Everyone knows the porter scene but the title character himself has some great moments of wry and ironic humor. Much depends on the cleverness of the actor in the role.

Consider this line:

"Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men;
As hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs,
Shoughs, water-rugs and demi-wolves, are clept
All by the name of dog."

I have heard it delivered seriously and comically and, when played for comedy, it has the remarkable effect of enhancing the overall darkness and drama of the scene as Macbeth's encroaching madness becomes increasingly apparent. But it's still funny.

Macbeth is definitely a great play. Lady Macbeth is a fabulous villain. Actually saw a production of the play in Stratford-Upon-Avon in June '07!

Shakespeare Retold is a collection of 4 modernized film versions of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, MACBETH, THE TAMING OF THE SHREW, and A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

In this collection, Macbeth is the chef in a 3-star restaurant who slices apart his celebrity boss, Duncan. The restaurant sets provide an appropriately crabbed, cramped, crazy feeling to the proceedings. These adaptations have been called playful, cunning, and passionate. They are worth a look--or two.

I was first introduced to Macbeth by a travelling company who came to our school (I was 14 at the time). They put on the play scene by scene but got us involved in various ways both on and off stage. I was fascinated both by the play and by the author. I still am. For me, the most spine-tingling moment of the play is when the soldiers come to get Macduff's family. Until then, Macbeth for all his crimes has only done things to further his own ambition. Here he crosses that line. It's the last step in his downward spiral of evil.

One of my favorite aspects of Macbeth is that one of Shakespeare's most reprehensible characters is barely present. For money and authority, the thane of Ross is willing to let assassins into his cousin's house, but when he's refused the position of thane of Cawdor, the changes sides.

Studied this at school in Ye Olden Days.
I know everyone goes on about language and plot and symbolism, which I get now...but as a 14 year old boy the fact that there was killing and swords in it were major selling points.
Have to keep the groundlings happy too.
I think people tend to forget that the plays had to cater for all when they study them. The focus on language and character, ignoring the entertainment factor. Fancy dialogue is nothing when you have a pit of drunken hecklers in front of you, unless they are getting something from the whole experience.
I know theatre would have been a more "interactive" experience in those days, go see a Glasgow pantomime for a hint at the heckling and put-downs that don't actually slow the play. I assume things would have been similar in old Bill's day.
On that note, anyone know any good books that would look at Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre from the groundling point of view? Or of the experience as entertainment for the masses?

Barbarossa,

Your point is very good. I remember reading about ancient Greek theatre and the historian discussing how the entire town would attend the theatre together, blacksmiths and carpenters sitting next to Socrates and Plato. The playwrights needed to know how to avoid boring the illiterates while simultaneously keeping the greatest intellectuals of the day satisfied.

Shakespeare managed the same great feat. When I was a kid, my interest in swords and armor exposed me to great poetry. Soon, I was as in love with the poetry as I was with the weaponry. I got lucky this way because I was incontrovertably in love with this stuff before anyone told me it wasn't cool. Today, the poetry is my favorite aspect but I still love the swords too.

I wonder if there were Shakespeare geeks back then...like Monty Python fans now, sitting in Ye Olde Taverne quoting bits from A Midsummer Night's Dream at each other...or Tarantino fans, but quoting Henry V instead of Pulp Fiction.
I'd like to think so.

Barbarossa,

I think there absolutely Shakespeare contemporary geeks in the authors day. Just like there are Tarantino or Terrence Malick geeks today.

Anthropologically speaking...and paleotology speaking...humans haven't changed much at all for 100,000 years. There is evidence that many of the things we care about now, are found to have been of concern thousands of years ago with vidence found in old camp fire remains of ancient humans. Graves from 30,000 years ago have contained flowers. Art work adorns living areas...art work with strong narrative content.

Plus...in Shakespeare's time literary criticism was beginning to be published no? And when people go to the pub for a drink...they talk about what they did. Surely just anecdote-wise it would be common to talk about what stories you saw or heard and if you went to a performance...it is common to start quoting lines and mimicking the play.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1327194805/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Sharp-Kni...

Candy wrote: "Barbarossa,

I think there absolutely Shakespeare contemporary geeks in the authors day. Just like there are Tarantino or Terrence Malick geeks today.

Anthropologically speaking...and paleotology ..."

I now imagine geeks arguing over ale about the relative merits of Hamlet and the "directors" cut of it...we might sit and compare the versions in the big old Norton, but muttering over ale at Mrs Miggins while munching on a bit of stale trencher and oggling Molly the serving wench would have been closer.
Or MacBeth:
"Listen boy, that new one at the Globe...mad fight scenes, angry Scotsman with a mad wifie, witches...no, I know you prefer those splatter plays by Kit, but give it a shot...he goes mad starts seeing knives and dead men...Molly! More ale!"

Considering that you have such discussions of Shakespeare now, it makes sense to imagine that they've been around for a while.

Hello Mathew! Oh how I've missed you so good to see you here!

Think you might be up for a group discussion in the new year? See "group readings" topic

:)

Barbarossa,

There must be books on the history of audience responses in the theatre. Tell me if you're really interested I might be able to dig out a few titles ... then check back in a couple of weeks.

From the beginning of the 18th century onwards a lot is known about audience behaviour. The standard of middle-class deference you see today began in the later 19th century as the profession of actor increased in dignity and prestige. But in the regency period heckling and booing was common enough. Once Chales Lamb, sitting in the audience, joined in the booing of his own play.

You speak of the Glasgow panto goers (boy, it's nice to see a fellow Brit in this place!), and I imagine a crowd of football fans. In the 18th century is was almost like that. There were two active theatres in London, Covent Garden and Drury Lane. One of them at least had a barricade round the stage to prevent the theatical equivalent of a pitch invasion.

For a typical description of audience behaviour, see Boswell's London Journal, the entry for Wed 8 December 1762. (I can't find it on the internet -- copyright reasons.) With your Scottish interest you would love it. Two Scottish officers were pelted with apples by a mob in the gallery shouting "No scots! No scots!" Boswell jumped up onto his seat and roared at them "Damn you, you rascals!" Then he went over to his fellow coutrymen the officers, introduced himself and made friends. There is nothing in his journal to suggest that this was unusual theatre behaviour.

Extrapolating back in time, the later Victorians thought Shakespeare's audiences must have been a sorry lot indeed, and felt sympathy for the great author, writing plays in an age when they could not be understood or appreciated. But there is just no evidence for that. To find out about the Elizabethan stage you have to resort to archaeology. The modern view is that, whatever their behaviour, Shakespeare was understood and appreciated by a discerning audience -- it makes no sense otherwise.

It does interest me, so any pointers would be good.
Only getting back into old Bill recently after many years away, looking for any info that will help my understanding of the environment the plays were designed to be seen in...modern interpretations are all well and good, just think I'd like to try and get more detail on how they worked as entertainment for the masses at the time they were first performed. As he was working for a living, rather than relying on piles of cash from a patron, he must have been painfully aware of what poor audience response could mean. Actually, does anyone know if he had any flops? All received well?
So any pointers appreciated.

Julia wrote: "I love Macbeth...my father studies genealogy and he found out that I am the 33rd great granddaughter of Lady Macbeth =)"

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.a...

Barbarossa, I don't have a book reference, but I was talking with someone who knows something of the history. In the 17th century, the cheap seats were crowded round the stage, but that changed in the 18th century, because the rise of the "proscenium" stage made people value front row seats. The poorer seats moved up to the gallery. In the 19th cetury you tended to get standard seats in the pit, expensive seats in the first and second circles, cheap seats in the gallery. Gradually in the 20th century this was displaced by a more democratic system. Fruit was sold to theatre-goers, a bit like today's popcorn, so orange peel etc thrown from the gallery was common, as in the Boswell incident. Because of the crowd of common folk around the stage in the 17th century, you got more engagement with actors, not unlike panto today.

In Beaumont and Fletcher's Knight of the Burning Pestle, you get actors hiding in the audience and going up onstage. There is nothing equivalent in Shakespeare.

I was watching Senso for the "theatre protest" opening, and decided to write something about it ....

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Martin is correct. The term "groundlings" reminds us of the notion that those closest to the stage (and, thus, the ground) were the poorest of the audience members. It was also not uncommon for some audience members to actually sit on the edge of the stage itself (though I confess I forget where I read this) but that custom was ended by none other than David Garrick.

Today, of course, it is rare to find a theatre that has quite so many levels as the old ones to which Martin refers. However, at the Metropolitan Opera in New York, the most expensive seats are still the first rows of the balcony and boxes, followed then by the orchestra level, then moving upwards, farther from the stage. And at the Met, that can be very far indeed. This is a theatre in which you could lay a 45-story building on its side and it would reach from the back of the stage to the back of the house.

Hi Matthew, very nice to hear from you again.

I am fascinted by this mini-histry of theatre seating! I love it.

And damn...it's great to "see" you Matthew!

Hi Martin and Candy! So nice to know I'm missed and I'm sorry I've been so absent. Glad to see you both. Happy New Year.

The cheap seats were always up top when I was a bairn at the panto, called "the gods" 'cause you were so high up...you'd need a ballista to hit someone from there with orange peel.

This is a perfect example of why I have always liked intimite theatres. Cozy little 50-seaters where the worst seat in the place is still plenty close to the action. Nobody ever makes any money working in such places but it's good for the art.

On the flip side, I remember my first time seeing a show at Radio City Music Hall (the world's largest indoor theatre, just shy of 6,000 seats). I had done some volunteer street performing for Comic Relief (the 8th season) and the one form of compensation -- other than the satisfaction of having done it, of course -- was free tickets to the show. We were in the very back of the fifth (last) balcony. The performers on stage literally looked like ants.

I lost count of how many times I have read this, I always imagine Nicole Kidman as Lady Macbeth, Ewan McGregor as Macbeth and Sean Connery as Duncan.

I love the darkness, the violence, the madness, murder, blood, witchcraft, betrayal, etc.

I recently saw an Australian movie adaptation themed with the Australian mafia underworld, I actually thought it was a good idea, but the actors sucked, they were clearly not trained and their lines lacked the necessary passion Shakespeare demands.

Hello to all you Macbeth fans...

I'd like to suggest a little related reading: my Shakespearean thriller, HAUNT ME STILL, which starts with my heroine Kate facing the legendary curse on the play, and soon forces her to consider the rumors of witchcraft surrounding it...

And, hey, according to the Washington Post, "This lively and fact-filled novel would do nicely for a rainy day at the beach." And what could be better than Macbeth at the beach?

You can find out more at www.jenniferleecarrell.com, or at my page on Facebook.

Hope to see some of you there!

I read Macbeth in class and it was one of my favorite plays by Shakespeare! This play has everything all packed into one. But does anyone know other plays by Shakespeare that are your favorite and would suggest to read??

thanks!!!

You could join in the Shakespeare reading group here, Christina, if you wish. I have no idea which play will be read next.

A marked advantage of Macbeth for the classroom is its brevity. It is one of Shakespeare's shortest plays. If you want a comedy of about the same length, you could go for The Tempest.

@Christina: Twelfth Night is marvelous - a comedy (happy ending) about comedy (haha funny). There's cross-dressing, two of the most amazing characters in all of Shakespeare (Viola, the female lead, and Feste, the clown), an intriguing plot, and comparatively straightforward language.

Twelth Night I think is one of Shakespeare's best comedies. Viola is the best female characters in shakespeare of all times

Because most people don't do alot of Shakespeare acting lost dont know that in theatre its bad luck to say Macbeth so I refer to it as the "Scottish Play"

Chloe wrote: "My favorite part in the play is when Lady Mac goes crazy and kills herself! It is very dark but I love the tension! In Shakespeare Competition we won! (I was a witch)"

Lady Macbeth is an amazingly thought after character, he dynamic and attitude is very intense. I agree the death of Lady Macbeth is historical. I especially love the speech she makes in the play....


The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood,
Stop up th’access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
Th’ effect and it. Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief. Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry ‘Hold, hold!’

Christina wrote: "I read Macbeth in class and it was one of my favorite plays by Shakespeare! This play has everything all packed into one. But does anyone know other plays by Shakespeare that are your favorite and ..."

I personally love Much Ado About Nothing.

Marko wrote: "I lost count of how many times I have read this, I always imagine Nicole Kidman as Lady Macbeth, Ewan McGregor as Macbeth and Sean Connery as Duncan.

I love the darkness, the violence, the madne..."

Hmm not so much with you on the actors. I dont think Nicole Kidman is intense enough for Lady M. I would say more Sean Connery for Macbeth....IDK who id pick for Lady M....Meryl Streep is an amazing actress but idk how she'd fit.

Bear in mind that Sean Connery is 80 years old at the end of this year. I like the idea of him as Duncan.

Referring back to message #24, the key reference is,

Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare's London,

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98...

Jenna wrote: "Hmm not so much with you on the actors. I dont think Nicole Kidman is intense enough for Lady M. ..."

I agree with you about these actors, since I "imagine" them for the rolls, I also "imagine" them being able to perform Shakespeare, that's what's awesome about books isn't it, imagining that everything is possible.

this was my fav book!

I've forgotten the author, but the recent edition of the NYRB had a Shakespeare article with this very interesting quote in it: "...he devoted his career to the disclosure of a whole range of boundaries and borders, to a sharp investigation of the absolute claims--for church, for state, for self, for love--that were all around him, and that he so distrusted."

If anybody else read this, please post the author's name with my apologies!

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

Sean Connery's son Jason played Macbeth in a late 80s movie version--all Scottish actors. He looks the part, but can't act like Dad. Helen Baxendale is L MAcbeth and she is EVIL. enjoyable.